Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually there are many instances where it shows god as omniscient. To many for me to list and all can easily be found. They also don't come with a qualified circumstance. Additionally prophecy that it said comes from God implies he knows the future..

i know the Bible quite well. I can quote the Bible chapter and verse all day. Not that I going to tho. Will make quite a few people reading get a sore head

i want to stay on point because is quite interesting what god == omniscient entails. Where omniscient is taken as you wrote and I quoted earlier: To mean a god who knows everything we are ever going to do before we do it

but it can seem true and is often preached by the church as if it is absolutely true, by qualification/implication. Similar to how you have done this. Prophecy implies. Is not a fact. Implication can tho lead us to a conclusion, which is not quite the same thing as a fact

it can seem like the biblical god would know what we are going to do before we do it, because this god knows everything about us, everything about the world in which we live, and what every outcome is before we ourselves have even decided for ourselves

there is a Cambridge dictionary meaning of what omniscient means which is true in the god context. "Omniscient: having or seeming to have unlimited knowledge"

is the seeming bit that gets skipped over in quite a few theological discussions

a binary decision tree to show how a god can seem to have unlimited knowledge, to a person within a world

in this showing there is a person whose life in this world is 4 decisions in length, and on completing these decisions there can only be 1 outcome for the person from a possible 5 outcomes. The outcome for the person cannot be 6 or -2 or 12. The outcome can only be 1,2,3,4 or 5 because of the structure of the world - is how it is made - what exists. Outcomes 6 -2 12 do not exist and can never happen. Same as in our real world there some outcomes that while can be imagined, are not possible within it

1 /\
2 /\/\
3 /\/\/\
4 /\/\/\/\
1 2 3 4 5

the god of this world knows everything about this world. The god knows how many decisions there are, where every path leads at every step, and what all of the possible outcomes are. The person doesn't know how many decisions they will have to make in their lifetime, and the person doesn't know absolutely what the outcomes are either until they get there

then the god gives the person free will - decide/choose the path as the person wants

in addition to knowing everything about the world, the god also knows what the outcomes will never be for the person every time the person makes a decision

decison 1. Choose Left. The person will never get to Outcome 5
decision 2. Choose Right. The person will never get to Outcomes 1 or 5
decision 3. Choose Left. Then person will never get to Outcomes 1, 4 or 5
decision 4. Choose Left. The person can never be at Outcomes 1, 3, 4 or 5

and because the god knows the person's thoughts, the god could be there waiting for the person when they step thru any of the gates after making a decision. Which would seem pretty omniscient to the person, were this god to do this

this is not any attempt to proof any god. It just shows what seems like looks like, when the person does have free will and the god seems to the person to have unlimited knowledge about the world and everything in it. The god knows that the world is limited, the person doesn't because the person never gets to walk every possible path that the world contains. Not unless is like a groundhog day world

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Virtue-signalling is driven by vanity and self-aggrandizement, not concern with others. When you accuse someone of virtue signalling you are accusing them of a kind of hypocrisy, saying they are not concerned with the issues but instead are concerned with displaying themselves in the best possible light.
It's a huge insult to accuse another of this, and also a way to dismiss another's ideas instead of attempting to debate the issue. As such, it is an ad hominem attack.

Blaise wasn’t, I was discussing the whole mileu of “call out culture” which has been growing for some time and the self-discipline required -not- to just try and shout people down or ridicule them.

I’d rather change minds, whereas many in this day and age will settle for cowing people into temporary and insincere silence.

But for Blaise’s post - I was not intentionally making any such inference .

I prefer to be very direct with personal criticism and if any such is ever offered, it will be accompanied by a pronoun signifying a single individual.

Share on other sites

Thanks! Never heard of the guy (I don't have much time for philosophy) but I do think I'll log Tolya in and put that quote in his profile. I hope I remember it when I'm on my deathbed (insert eerie music here).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It *feels* good to take a virtue-signaling, morally-superior stance, but it also reduces any chance of swaying the objects of ridicule over to a different way of thinking.

Ok, yes I see from further comments that you're not implying Blaise is virtue-signalling.

I just want to point out though, that one can be very strident in arguing for their side, or lack social skills required for debating, or demonize the other side, or say they believe the other side is totally wrong -- but this does not have to mean they are virtue-signalling -- virtue signalling means someone is being fake & putting on a show to feel superior by appearing to champion a cause, & not really caring about the issue they're pushing for.

Edited January 13 by Luna Bliss

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Possibly. It's a good theory. But I don't think it applies. It is more what I was talking about: That I stood "still" and the world moved and my label with it. I never had terribly negative feelings about the word liberal, or positive ones for conservative...they were just where the slider fell on the continuum. Right now the label that fits is "OMG Never Trump Again!" I don't believe in Satan or God, but as I said earlier, I'd vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils.

People always think they stay the same. It's pretty unlikely - how we see the world evolves with life experience. When you say you've become more "nuanced", it likely means you've drifted one way or another, for instance.

I, however, am as constant as the North star...

Right. That's why I put "still" in quotes. Still-ish. I have definitely moved some sliders more toward the liberal side. Real life experiences and exposures to things I had not had previously educated me on those, the way no lecture ever could. But taken as a whole, my views have changed very little. The world slid. And continues to slide.

And I don't doubt your North star constancy. Nope. Not a bit of doubt. Totally believe all of it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When someone mentions their preferred pronouns, it is very useful - it lets me know they are lunatics and best ignored.

'Non-binary' is the biggest hoax of the 2010s. Just a way for spoilt brats to discard biological fact and reason for the chance to scream at them evil 'cis' white men - the same men they depend on for handouts.

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away and the media people pushing this madness become thoroughly embarrassed by it all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have definitely moved some sliders more toward the liberal side. Real life experiences and exposures to things I had not had previously educated me on those, the way no lecture ever could. But taken as a whole, my views have changed very little. The world slid. And continues to slide.

Well, I think there’s been a weird paradigm shift where what is considered “liberal” would’ve been considered conservative-centrist 20-30 years ago. The right....well I don’t even want to say where that shifted. Meanwhile, most people are naturally centrist leaning, with strongly progressive views. So that leaves many to choose a side that neither really fits.

Today someone like Jimmy Carter would be considered a socialist. Think about that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When someone mentions their preferred pronouns, it is very useful - it lets me know they are lunatics and best ignored.

'Non-binary' is the biggest hoax of the 2010s. Just a way for spoilt brats to discard biological fact and reason for the chance to scream at them evil 'cis' white men - the same men they depend on for handouts.

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away and the media people pushing this madness become thoroughly embarrassed by it all.

Thanks for pointing out why the LBGTQ community sometimes expresses anger when others refuse to acknowledge their existence.

* You are a perfect example of the disrespect they are forced to deal with.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Thanks! Never heard of the guy (I don't have much time for philosophy) but I do think I'll log Tolya in and put that quote in his profile. I hope I remember it when I'm on my deathbed (insert eerie music here).

Do take some time to look at some of his stuff Tolya. I am, sure you will find that a lot of it resonates with you.

“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

"The welfare state that is built upon this conception seems to move precisely away from the Conservative conception of authoritative and personal government, towards a labyrinthine, privilege sodden structure of anonymous power, structuring a citizenship that is increasingly reluctant to answer for itself, increasingly parasitic on the dispensations of a bureaucracy towards which it can feel no gratitude."

Meanwhile, here is one for Scylla et al;

"It is not enough to be nice; you have to be good. We are attracted by nice people; but only on the assumption that their niceness is a sign of goodness."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When someone mentions their preferred pronouns, it is very useful - it lets me know they are lunatics and best ignored.

'Non-binary' is the biggest hoax of the 2010s. Just a way for spoilt brats to discard biological fact and reason for the chance to scream at them evil 'cis' white men - the same men they depend on for handouts.

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away and the media people pushing this madness become thoroughly embarrassed by it all.

If that's the way you truly feel, what a miserable rotten life you must have to be full of so much hate, and also so very wrong.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do take some time to look at some of his stuff Tolya. I am, sure you will find that a lot of it resonates with you.

“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

"The welfare state that is built upon this conception seems to move precisely away from the Conservative conception of authoritative and personal government, towards a labyrinthine, privilege sodden structure of anonymous power, structuring a citizenship that is increasingly reluctant to answer for itself, increasingly parasitic on the dispensations of a bureaucracy towards which it can feel no gratitude."

Meanwhile, here is one for Scylla et al;

"It is not enough to be nice; you have to be good. We are attracted by nice people; but only on the assumption that their niceness is a sign of goodness."

"in 2002, he was criticised for writing articles in defence of smoking without acknowledging that he was being paid by JTI, one of the largest tobacco companies."

Seems a bad trait among Trumpers....not really caring if somebody is a creep.

What makes him a creep? Defending smoking (a choice free people are allowed to make, sort of like smoking dope or drinking alcohol), or the fact that he defended it while being paid by JTI (which would be the same as any paid staffer on the Bernie campaign writing something in support of Bernie), or the fact that he didn't disclose it (which would be the same as if said Bernie supporter didn't disclose on any Tweet or post or editorial that he/she is paid by the Bernie campaign)? It's not like this guy was a scientist who might be fudging his data or scientific rigor to benefit his sponsor.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Right. That's why I put "still" in quotes. Still-ish. I have definitely moved some sliders more toward the liberal side. Real life experiences and exposures to things I had not had previously educated me on those, the way no lecture ever could. But taken as a whole, my views have changed very little. The world slid. And continues to slide.

And I don't doubt your North star constancy. Nope. Not a bit of doubt. Totally believe all of it.

Awww come on, you were supposed to say something about the last guy who said the bit about the North star met a grisly end!

“Whole new crimes have come into existence, like this supposed crime of ‘date rape’. What that means is — of course there is no such crime — but nevertheless, when a woman cries ‘date rape’ what she means is ‘the whole thing went too quickly’, you know, ‘I was not prepared’, and so consent is withdrawn as it were in retrospect.”

“Likewise, the charge of sexual harassment. This was never made in the past. It was called impoliteness if somebody put his hand on your knee prematurely, or if it was the wrong hand. But nowadays, of course, ‘sexual harassment’ just means sexual advances made by the unattractive, who are the majority, so there is a huge injustice in this.”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world.

Um, says who? Where is the demonstration or proof that this is what motivates Marxist intellectuals? Reading intention is always highly iffy, but I'm supposed to just accept this guy's say-so? And who says Marxists even want to "control the world"? What does that even mean? And how do you define "Marxist"?

3 hours ago, Derek Torvalar said:

And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.

And when you haven't even bothered to prove your premises, your conclusion is bound to be as flimsy as a half-finished spider web. Tacking "since" on to the beginning of a sentence, and then throwing in a "conclude" -- as though we'd been given any actual data to analyze in the first place -- is just rhetorical sleight-of-hand: it's cheap, meaningless, and fraudulent.

Sorry, Derek: this guy is demonstrating here all the intellectual rigour and nourishment of bowl of badly overcooked spaghettini -- without the sauce.

3 hours ago, Derek Torvalar said:

It is not enough to be nice; you have to be good. We are attracted by nice people; but only on the assumption that their niceness is a sign of goodness."

Who has said this? And what is "good"?

Being "nice" is insufficient proof of anything, and certainly not of "correctness" -- but, since we are speaking of intention and motivation, it is at least an index of ethical and moral belief.

That ain't enough, but it's not a bad place to start.

I wish to god, seriously, that conservatism could find an intellectual and philosophical voice of real power and ideas, rather than the shabby and half-baked populism of a Peterson or a Scruton. Where is the modern version of Burke, or Macaulay? We actually need intelligent and thoughtful conservative voices -- but this ain't one of 'em.